Why Did Konami Cancel Six Days in Fallujah - An Editorial

For a long time now War games based on true-life events have been at the front shelves in stores around the world, with games like Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, and many others topping the sales charts. The gaming public clearly has an appetite for games of the "war" genre but the question raised now is "should real war be used as a form of gaming entertainment". This comes as Konami made (and quickly exited) a journey into the war-game market; the game in question goes by the name "Six Days in Fallujah" and is a third person action title to be based on the 2004 Iraq war. This development has brought both a lot of criticism and a lot of unwavering support from the soldiers that were involved in the skirmish, political activists, and anyone with a voice.
(PC, PS3, Six Days in Fallujah, Xbox 360)

The screenshots of this game actually look really good and I am sad that Konami did not decide to stand behind it; I did hear that Atomic Games is going to continue developing it and maybe just change the name/story line, although I think that would take the whole angle away.....oh well good article!

i'm seriously annoyed about this, what kind of a society do we live in where people complain about stuff that they don't like and have the ability to take it away from everyone else?? if they hate the game that much then dont play it!! simple!!

I agree 100%, it's a sore spot with the public, we all understand that; doesn't mean Konami shouldn't have stood up for their product and weathered the storm; now we may miss out on one of the best "war" games to come out this generation; at least we know it would have been relevant....

In Holland, the prime minister encouraged to ban this game, probably because of the many mistakes he made in Iraq. When any other less realistic war game came or comes out, he didn't or doesn't complain.

Stunned...If you read the article it seems as if Konami was putting a huge amount of effort into getting out a triple A title with this. Made with the help of Marines that were there, which I'm sure that they had pretty good control over most of the game to make it as realistic to the sitatuion as possible. It's sad that people still think games are just ridiculous toys, sorry for you who don't understand, but it's an art medium. Just like movies, TV shows, Music...

I'm also kind of disappointed in Konami for giving under the pressure. But with so many classics under their belt it's hard to stay mad at them though, even if now we can only wonder how good this game could have been.

They should remake it and name it 6 days in a fajita It will feature angry guacamole and you are the grilled chicken or steak and must fight with onion and tomato to over come the acid reflux! Ahhhhhhh

Seriously lame! Not to mention someone will do it and now its got hype and youll lose at suckers!

Konami didn't think it was worth spending money on something that might flop because of the controversy surrounding its release. It had nothing to do with hurting feelings -it had everything to do with making a smart financial choice.

I would tend to disagree they got out due to financial reasons. It's possible it will flop, but I think the controversy will help it make sales. Gamers don't typically shy away from controversial games... GTA has made a killing on them. I think Konami didn't want a PR hit. Japanese companies seem to be courting the West lately and they probably didn't want the bad press for the company.

While censorship, on the whole, is something that worries me I have to concede that a war where the real reasons for what occurred have still to be investigated in real life was always going to be the most controversial setting for a video game you could get about now.

Like it or not the Iraq war creates more tension and current debate than the events of WW2 where the countries making(and mostly the markets for) those games(MoH, COD etc)are playing with history both less raw and more clear cut(on a moral basis).

People still feel that the US and UK inparticular may have, at the very least, built up the reasons for invading Iraq and since no evidence of the alleged WMDs were found during or since the main assault the allegations of a war over oil rather than against terror remain unanswered.

That real Marines who will have seen unimaginable horrors during the actual campaign have been consulted heavily would certainly add to the realism of what the game included but the danger is that the story woud then look opne sided and in a game about a war where few agree on the reasons for it going ahead that's a dangerously imflammatory position to be in.

Add in that Japan, as the only nation ever to have had the nuclear bomb ever used on them is still not comfortable with the inclusion of similar weapons in cpmpletely made up games like Fallout3 and you can start to see why Konami are a little jumpy over this issue.

Just why they felt they were abe to publish in the first place is what amazes me. If they didn't think this would be a hot one just how naive are they?

I'm not saying it's the wrong or right decision to pull out of publishing the game-just that I can't understand why people, esp Konami, didn't realise there would be big opposition to a game about a war with soldiers still in the country where it took place and the deaths of combatants on both sides and civilians too fresh in the minds of the relatives to be put into a game. Whether we lke it or not people whose sons died in similar places to Fallujah likely come from a generation that neither play nor understand videogames or gaming let alone think it a medium fit to investigate/display the realities of such a fresh war.

It's common to hear the "it's the victors that write history" and allowing the same broad group of people(basically the west)to have their youth/gamers get entertainment through replaying such recent actions is bound toget criticised by many people. Maybe if there was just as much input from the Iraqis that supported Saddams regime that wouldn't be as pertinent but , even whle admitting Saddam was a nasty piece of work, and that said input is practically impossible if even we, in the west can't agree whether there was just enough reason to start the invasion in the first place how can we expect people whose countries opposed that act from the first instance not to feel "Six days..." is a bit close to the bone?

If we don't get to even see the game the danger is that we might lose out on a unique piece of recent retelling of history but I get why konami have got cold feet over this. Touchy subject for me, if i'm honest, as I don't like to think you should be stopped from saying anything no matter how much I might diagree but to be frank I think this might all just be a bit too real and a bit too soon for many people-esp those who don't understand gaming whatsoever.

Why? Because of liberal cry babies. The same people who cry about Fat Princess and wanted it shut down. The same people who cry about Microsoft not letting them say they're homosexuals in their Live profile. These same twisted freaks. That's why this game didn't happen.

menoyou kinda has a point although he went a little far. im a sergeant in the marine corps and ive been there. if any has the right to object to this game its the people whove been there, not a bunch of liberal hippies. if the right approach is taken with this game it'll tell an honest story from the people who were there. (end 2 cents)